You may not like Donald Trump, for any one of a number of reasons, but anti-interventionists
have to give him some credit for opening up the presidential debate to a critique
of US foreign policy that hasn’t been seen or heard since the Ron Paul campaign.
On
Syria and on
Iraq, he challenges
the GOP/neoconservative orthodoxy in a way that Sen. Rand Paul hasn’t been able
to do: indeed, one could argue that Trump has stolen Rand’s thunder – such as
it is – in sounding the anti-interventionist note. And now Trump is upsetting
the conventional GOP wisdom in an even more fundamental sense by challenging
the “he kept us safe” theme that Jeb Bush has been pushing on behalf of
his brother – you know, that former chief executive who left office with a popularity
rating lower
than any President in recent memory.

The Jeb-Trump contretemps played out over the weekend’s talk shows, with The
Donald telling
Fox News:

“Look, Jeb said we were safe with my brother – we
were safe. Well, the World Trade Center just fell down. Now, am I trying to
blame him? I’m not blaming anybody. But the World Trade Center came down. So
when he said, we were safe, that’s not safe. We lost 3,000 people, it was one
of the greatest – probably the greatest catastrophe ever in this country if you
think about it.”

Ouch!

Jeb came
back at him on CNN, the cable station nobody watches, protesting that brother
George “united the country,” and going on to aver:

“I don’t know why he keeps bringing
this up. It doesn’t show that he’s a serious person as it relates to being commander
in chief and being the architect of a foreign policy. Across the spectrum of
foreign policy, Mr. Trump talks about things that – as though he’s still on The Apprentice.”

I’m sure Jeb has never seen a single episode of “The Apprentice,” and that’s
because he’s a Very Serious Person who is fast becoming the architect of his
own defeat. This kind of condescending snootiness is a definite turnoff for
voters, many
of whom have seen “The Apprentice” and don’t appreciate being talked
down to. Because in talking down to Trump, voters feel Jeb is talking down to
them. That Jeb and his advisors don’t get this is the chief reason why
the Bush campaign is sinking like a stone.

And just how serious is Jeb’s critique of Trump? If you parse it, it makes
no sense: what does being commander-in-chief have to do with Trump’s criticism
of brother Bush that, after all, the twin towers came down on his watch?
What does being “the architect of a foreign policy” have to do with Trump’s
assertion that the hijackers wouldn’t have even been allowed into the country
if he had been President at the time? And what, exactly, does “across the spectrum
of foreign policy” mean, anyway?

While Jeb may believe attacking
his brother is a mistake Trump will come to regret – he immediately launched
a fundraising drive asking his Twitter followers for $5 to “defend my brother”
– the reality is that Trump has hit a nerve. And he dug the stiletto in deeper
when he tweeted this
New York Times op ed piece pointing out that George W. Bush had plenty
of warning before 9/11 that something big was in the works.

This is important for two reasons: 1) It reinforces one of the major themes
of the Trump campaign, which is the utter incompetence of our supposedly all-wise
rulers, and 2) It upends one of the central myths of the post-9/11 era, which
is that they attacked us because we’re so wonderful and free. Trump has another
view, which
he expressed in his book, The
America We Deserve, published over a year before the 9/11 attacks. In
that book he wrote:

“I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of
terrorist attacks that will make the bombing of the Trade Center look like kids
playing with firecrackers. No sensible analyst rejects this possibility, and
plenty of them, like me, are not wondering if but when it will happen.”

Not only that, but he attached a name to the threat:

“One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed
address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters
lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a
few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”

And Trump makes the same point made by Ron Paul during that now famous
moment in the 2008 GOP debate when Paul described the 9/11 attacks as “blowback”
from our foreign wars. Writes Trump:

“I may be making waves, but that’s all right. Making waves is usually what
you need to do to rock the boat, and our national-security boat definitely needs
rocking. Let’s point fingers. The biggest threat to our security is ourselves,
because we’ve become arrogant. Dangerously arrogant. It’s time for a realistic
view of the world and our place in it. Do we truly understand the threats we
face? ,,,

“Whatever their motives – fanaticism, revenge – suffice it to say that plenty
of people would stand in line for a crack at a suicide mission within America.
In fact the number of potential attackers grows every day. Our various military
adventures – some of which are justified, some not – create new legions of people
who would like to avenge the deaths of family members or fellow citizens.”

No, Trump isn’t a consistent noninterventionist:

“It is one cost of peacekeeping we should keep in mind.
I am not a hard-core isolationist. While I agree that we stick our noses into
too many problems not of our making and that we can’t do much about, I strongly
disagree with the idea that we can pull up the drawbridge to hide from rogue
nations or individual fanatics.”

Trump takes a Rand Paulian, i.e. ambiguous view of when to intervene abroad.
But there’s one big difference between The Donald and Rand: Trump is the frontrunner,
while Rand is
trailing at the back end of the crowd. Yet more evidence that Trump has
absorbed the support Sen. Paul hoped to capture.

In any case, what is truly amazing is that Trump is busy demolishing the post-9/11
consensus on foreign policy within the GOP: a central pillar of the elaborate
mythology that went into justifying the Iraq war is falling by the wayside,
thanks to him. Not only that, but the neoconservative agenda is being met head
on by Trump, who disdains US involvement in Syria – a project the liberal Democrats
also
support, with Hillary Clinton leading
the charge.

No, you don’t have to be a Trump supporter – and I am not – to see the benefits
of his campaign for the noninterventionist cause. For lo these many years, the
Washington Beltway know-it-alls have disdained
ordinary Americans for their “isolationism”
– why, those trailer-park types in flyover country don’t
even have passports! These same mandarins have celebrated their own dominance
of the foreign policy discourse, while politicians of both major parties have
given us a “choice” between different varieties of globalism: the crazed “unilateralism”
of the neoconservatives and the smugly self-righteous “humanitarian interventionism”
of the cruise-missile liberals. Now, at last, their monopoly on the discourse
has been broken – by a reality show television star and real-estate mogul who
speaks plainly and is outpolling everyone!

Trump embodies the American zeitgeist, circa 2015 – its virtues, its vulgarity,
its inchoate mixture of common sense and incoherence. He is, in short, a mixed
blessing, but one can’t help but cheer when he gives voice to the stubborn unwillingness
of the American people to take on the role of the “world’s savior.” As Trump
puts it in his book, cited above: “That
job is taken.”

To which one can only add: “Amen, brother!”

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here.
But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often
made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

The reaction of the media is hilarious. Suddenly they are the protectors of Dubya. Or is it that nothing that smells of criticism of neocon foreign policy may be uttered. 9/11 happened in 01 when Dubya was president. He was the 'decider' with whom the buck stops. But somehow "he kept us safe." Not only that but he presided over the near implosion of the world's economy. Some track record there for the media to defend. But there they are slamming their heads against the wall of reality. "Jeb" may be forgiven he can't think past his genes. Not that it matters, no one cares about "Jeb," he's finished and just keeps digging deeper.

follyofwar

Agreed, RickR30. Jeb is SO finished. I look for him to save face and drop out before Iowa and throw his support to Rubio. All the other candidates, save Carson (and possibly Rand), will do the same. Problem is that Rubio is Jeb on steroids. He's a total tool of Sheldon Adelson and is ready and willing (though probably not able) to go to war against Russia and for Israel. My prediction is that it will come down to Trump vs Rubio with the entire media behind Marco. When Carson eventually drops out, where will the bulk of his supporters go?

Freedom

Yeah! Rubio campaign theme – A New American Century. You know, like PNAC, the horribly evil neocon organization that called for the need of a 9/11 to create the jingoistic American police state.. Do those people think they are being clever???

Johnny in Wi.

Rubio is a total lightweight. He will never be elected. If he got the nomination he would be in the tank for Hillary. Trump is a lot of fun. At this stage of my life that is all I could expect from politics. There is no salvation from politicians.

follyofwar

Johnny – I agree that Rubio is a lightweight. But since when has that stopped anyone lately? No one was more of a lightweight intellectually that W.

nomorewaryouprats

Rick, so is the reaction of neoconservative talk radio. The Philadelphia neocon talk jocks are furious at Trump for "attacking" W (he really didn't–during the debate at the Bush Library in front of a partisan Bush crowd Trump criticized W for the disaster in Iraq and Jeb whimpered 'How dare you, my brother kept us safe'–it was Jeb himself who opened the door for Trump's perfectly reasonable sally that losing three thousand Americans on 9/11 by definition isn't keeping us safe, and by the way, this safekeeping happened on W's watch). But what astounded me most was the reaction of the callers during the 6-9 P.M. timeslot Monday evening. The host was a fill-in and instead of spending most of his time telling the listeners what to think about Trump's "attack" on W he just took calls, caller after caller. The call-screener must have been out sick because by my estimate 20-30% of the callers were openly skeptical of the Official Story. Some of them were misinformed, a few were nutters, but most had perfectly reasonable questions about the 9/11 Fable. One gentleman, evidently a pilot, made the argument that 9/11 was a bipartisan project because Able Danger uncovered the presence of the hijackers in the country BEFORE Bush came into power and because the CIA station chief in Jedda forced the American consulate to issue visas to the hijackers over consular objections also before Shrub assumed office.

I'm laughing my ass off about this. Trump makes a provably true simple declarative statement of fact and two days later hundreds of thousands of people in the greater Philadelphia area are hearing 9/11 Truth being debated by their fellow citizens on the airwaves.

marc

Another fine article by Justin. This is the kind of reading i enjoy.

On another note, check out Ditz latest fantasies about "Russians killed in Syria" further down in which i sent a comment that probably wont get trough the censor desk:

"So this is (still) what goes as "journalism at A.W, Ditz parroting allegations and rumors from a proven and notoriously lying isis supporter (that´s the only fact in this mess, he admit as much himself) The one-man "organisation" Rami Abdulrahman in England (currently in Kazakhstan) who receives his funds from the English regime,

The rest of the article is Ditz´s own speculations and open thoughts based on Abdulrahmans allegations.

By the end of the day two of Ditz favorite "reliable sources" will most certainly, again based on Abdulrahmans fantasies and wishful thinkings, boast "hundreds of Russian troops killed" (at the hand of our, no-longer-terrorist, freedom fighters) and throw in a number of "anonymous US officials" and the self proclaimed "expert"/blogger Elliot Higgins at "Bellingcat".

That, in turn, will probably also provide stuff for Ditz article on the subject tomorrow in which he will add CNN and more "US officials" ….

remoteviewed

As I wrote earlier.

Trump reminds me of an Idiot Savant.

Much of what he says is completely insane.

But then there are these gems of infinite wisdom.

Unlike other politicians who ignore the elephant in the room Trump comes right out and says what many Americans think about GW who presided over the worst terrorist attack ever in the US and the complete melt down of the economy.

I mean.

What a legacy!?

No wonder GW is in the top ten of the worst Presidents ever.

Too bad the minions of the main stream media can not see what a disaster the G W Presidency has been and continue to defend the indefensible.

"Kept us safe?????"

Tell that to the dead of the WTC ,the Pentagon and the passengers of those hijacked flights.

jojo archers

You feeling O.K? Off your meds? Wake up fool!
You said Trump is: Idiot Savant (Savant syndrome is a condition in which a person with a mental disability, such as an autism spectrum disorder, demonstrates profound and prodigious …).? completely insane?
Not one of the Presidential contenders comes close to being smart and on the ball as Trump.
FYI: All the rest are losers–even unfit to be dog catchers

remoteviewed

So you're saying that his plan to round up 11 million illegal aliens and build a wall around the continental US is "sane"?

Donald, the "national security boat" doesn't just need rocking — it needs to be swamped, capsized and sent to the bottom of the ocean. It is a government unto itself that slaughters thousands around the world with impunity. It is the KGB, Gestapo and Stasi on steroids, whose minions are domestic enemies of the Constitution. It can no more be reformed than the Mafia can. Destroy it and start over

Generalissimo X

the titanic comes to mind.

Charla

Remember, Jeb was a signatory to PNAC, Project for a New American Century's 'Statement of Principles' on June 3, 1997

hbm

Jeb is completely and utterly out of touch and has obviously lived in the 1%er Bush bubble his entire life. I am so thankful that Trump came along and torpedoed his campaign.

Generalissimo X

assuming one is reality adverse enough to buy the absurd 9/11 fable, than how can anyone believe that the bush regime is blameless?? aside from richard clarke's documented reports, how is it that the warnings from 16 different agencies including foreign intelligence serves (one of whom was iran!) supposedly telling our gov't something was in the works. kudos to trump for telling the truth about bush's complete incompetence. and regarding the bush clan, this is a family that has perpetrated generations of evil in america. trump was also right when he said the last thing america needs is another bush in the white house. it's hard to me to fathom how anyone anywhere would vote for any of them for any reason. i'm no fan of obama, but imagine the rethuglican outrage had such a heinous attack occurred on his watch. they'd be calling for his execution. moreover, obama's criminality wouldn't be exist, or at least could be held in check had anyone held the bush regime responsible for their crimes. bush and his gang of murderers did a great job in one area; setting a precedent for mass murder with ZERO consequences. and it continues. shocking.

and again, this just shows how adverse the media and idiotic american public are to the truth and actual facts. no one is to blame for anything. everything is just some random event that has no causality.

Fred

To hold Bush accountable for his crimes could subject Obama to being held accountable for his.
That simply isn't done in sophisticated circles such as Washington DC

follyofwar

Agreed General, except for the "zero consequences" part. There's a new sheriff in town, name of Vladimir Putin – and he's kicking US butt.

Generalissimo X

folly: that's a fair point, but zero consequences was meant in a legal context more than anything else.

fred: that's kinda the entire point of my rant

richard vajs

I don't blame G W Bush, so much for 9-11 happening (Cheney would never include the fool in such an involved plot), as for letting some obvious conspirators go after catching them red-handed filming the event in real time. I refer to the "dancing Israelis" filming the developing destruction and celebrating. They should have been exhaustively questioned. Also questioned should have been the royal Saudis tied to financing the comings and goings of the purported hi-jackers. Both groups were caught were immediately released and flown home to Israel and Saudi Arabia. That, Bush had to know and approve.

Guest

Americans always favor an outsider with a positive vision, however deluded, for the future of the country. Trump can win it all if he stops demonizing immigrant communities when proposing changes to immigration policy.

jojo archers

You must like supporting the millions of immigrants on welfare or taking American jobs. Have you noticed–over 103 million Americans between ages of 18-55 are unemployed and over 80% of workers make under $30,000 per year and over 42 million are on food stamps.
Wake up fool!

Brad Smith

I'm anti-war as you can get and have been since I got back from war. It took that much to wake me up. Granted this was 25 years ago and I was still only half baked. But I think this gives me a bit of a different view than the average anti-war guy around. Knowing the military and their mindset I can point out some things that are often missed.

W did NOT keep our soldiers safe. This is something that the people need to be reminded of and Trump should hammer on him next about that. How many of our soldiers were killed, maimed, mentally freaked up (like me), etc etc etc. There are Hundreds of Thousands of Veterans from the Iraq war that are a mess, one way or another. (Mine was Panama and Daddy Bush) The Veteran Organizations are not overrun because W kept our "brightest and best" safe! I go to VA and the guys you see there are a mess. It's not like you see on TV, you know those guys who bravely lost both legs and are happy to have the challenge of living free from their them.

Every American who thinks W did a good job should spend a week at any of our VA clinics. Meet the young men and women who are messed up. The mentally ill ones are the worst in some ways. Meet a few guys who you can tell are not functionally correct in the head anymore and see the cost they paid for W's lies. Maybe just go hang out for a day with some of their families. That ought to do the trick.

Mark in BC

Ah…you don't understand. Obama is to blame for the lack of service at the VA. After all, it's happening on "his watch". No blame for Bush sending them off to be maimed…blame the person that failed to provide treatment for the injuries.

It's like the guilt we're supposed to feel when we see the stump-like remains of someone sent to Iraq. Those that didn't want to send them in the first place are to blame because we don't "support the troops".

Not to worry, insanity like this has a way of imploding under the weight of its cognitive dissonance.

David Smith

A good place to put in a word for Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), an excellent organization that is actually doing something to help these veterans and work against the culture that creates all these wars. Check them out.

Prinzowhales

On vacation…and had the…'opportunity'… to hear Trump on Hannity…He spoke of creating "safe havens" in Syria…I went to bed…there is only so much one can take from these people…Let's hope Putin cleans up Syria before any of these arse-hats seeking the nomination can clinch it, win an election or be sworn into office and possibly try to inflict themselves and their intentions on the world.

follyofwar

Agreed, Prinz. Obama has been a HUGE disappointment, but at least he's not insane like Hillary and most of the AIPAC-controlled neocons in the GOP field are. Putin had to act while there was at least a bit of sanity left in the White House. He should mop up ISIS (as well as our "moderate rebels") in Syria well before the election and, hopefully, kick the US (and evil Victoria Nuland) out of Ukraine. Then it would be a fait accompli. What would the new POTUS do then, start WWIII just to save face?

This morning on BBC, there was an interview with an Iraqi official who stated that he would welcome Russian jets to come in and bomb ISIS sites because the Americans were so shy and tentative about dealing with them there and in Syria. The interviewer asked whether it had to do with the US sparing civilian lives, but he shrugged it off. The Russians were the ones to get the job done now. They were the go-to ones. But what about the Sunnis, asked the interviewer. Yeah, what about them said the Iraqi official.

So there you have it – the Persian connection. You have an ally of Iran doing the work the Iraqis in power want, because of the take-down of a Sunni-leaning strongman by GWBush. When the country falls apart, those in power seek order, and apparently Russia is more than happy to help. While to the war party this might argue for a second Cold War, to me it argues for letting things take their course while we back out. But one party will be very unhappy indeed, one party that we are committed to there as surely as if it were a 51st state. That would be Israel.

I would imagine that the Cold War is only just beginning and while Trump can see that and call it, he does not want any part of it and would probably welcome developing an understanding with Putin. That is why he is dangerous as hell to the existing order, whatever he is independently. Most of all, he has Third Party written all over him and the ability to fracture the Republicans the way they richly deserve.

I do not know what Hillary will do, probably same-old, same-old and she will as President lead us into another Cold War. But if it stays cold, that will be good though not optimal. She will placate Israel as much as possible.

muggles

Justin's essay strikes the right note at the moment. It is not a GOP primary to find the ideal candidate. Unfortunately, that won't happen.
So instead we have to choose "the best of a bad lot." Horrible lot, for a libertarian. But Trump reflects a grassroots "redneck" populism which is often on the mark, intentionally or not. Not deep, but not advocating massive statist interventionism either. True, his Mexican "wall building" idea is foolish, but does anyone think he would do that? Sure, Rand Paul has better genetics, but he seems to have the same lazy reading habits as Trump. No depth there. He should know better.
So Trump is far better than the gaggle of Establishment stamped candidates the Respectable Opinion favors. Trump is more guts than brains, but that tends to be the American Way.
Rand seems afraid of libertarian ideas. Trump just doesn't seem familiar with them. So compared to Comrade Sanders or She Who Must Be Our Ruler, Trump becomes more palatable by the day.

JMR

The Hungarians built two fences. No more refugee/migrant problem.

musings

Hungary is tiny by comparison with the US. You can waltz across it at lot faster than you can Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

John Dowser

Muggles, best summary of the primary I've seen yet! In some weird way Trump might be the ideal candidate to navigate that surreal reality-show-level political world which Washington DC has become over time. He also surrounded himself with a few anti-establishment types and show a lot of character beyond just appearances. Yes, it's mostly the spectacle of a crazy challenger and has possibly not the depth to actually form a sane government when it comes to it. But perhaps by that time he investigates a bit more the roots of his policy choices and those of others.

chris

at this point, Israel being the 51st state would be a welcome relief from their constant position as the 1st state !

Skywalker_297

Why would Israel want to be the 51st state? They would have two senators. Now they have 100.

The theme he hit on that may be the most brilliant — is competence. There are many reasons to think that the country is run by ideologues with their version of reality, and a whole lot of Musk-like fantasies that go from how to conquer space to how to feed the planet, and keep it from being destroyed by climate change. The most dangerous incompetence may well be in the area of national security, as the investments there are not likely to be questioned like "investments" in Afghanistan infrastructure. What made me think was an interview I ran across in Asian press — interview with Russian general in charge of Syrian operation. One of the questions was about the 26 cruise missile 900 miles trip from Caspian Sea to Syria. The interviewer wanted to know why was there so much fuss over not so secret technology. The general replied: "Because they were asleep". Asked to clarify he added that we (Russians) are told of these incredible capabilities of detection and interception that US has. It sounds more like fairy tales. I do not know much about the technology, but it struck me as rather odd that so many cruise missiles came from the direction of Iranian skies, and that there were no warnings made, no alarms issued, no alerts. After all, the difference between them landing in Syria or Israel is a matter of few hundred miles. And those missiles had much longer range. While this may mean nothing — it is still a bit surprising that the early detection either does not exist, or that they do not care actually what comes from the direction of Iranian sky — as they really are not worried about what Iranians may do, except for political purposes. Now, the whole thing takes on a different dimension. Basically saying, there is no safety in the world, and the only way to be safe is to collaborate and develop trusting relationships.

C. Wendt

I do believe that he would not linger for years combating "insurgents" or striving to puppet a brand-new "Democratic" government, and I appreciate that he isn't a reflexive interventionist and militant as most of the other candidates are.

However, I will say that it galls me to watch Raimondo praise Trump, skirt his many inhuman positions, and cast him as friendly to anti-interventionists, when he has previously labeled Rand Paul (with whom he sometimes contrasts Trump favorably in this article!) a warmonger, "Fraud, liar, failure," and what-have-you, for a foreign policy which is objectively ***much better*** than Trump's. He describes Trump's foreign policy here as "Rand Paulian," which I will say is fairly absurd, as Rand Paul on his worst day has never proposed anything so stupid or evil as, for example:
-"Doubling" the sanctions on Iran to make them bend and agree to whatever he wants (note that while Rand fell in with the Republican line and opposed the existing deal, Trump is still drastically worse here)
-Effectively raiding Iraq with ground soldiers to steal their oil
-Sending all of the Syrian refugees back on the grounds that they might be a "terrorist army in disguise" http://time.com/4056951/trump-syria-refugees/
-Preserving the NSA spy system and executing Edward Snowden for exposing it

It is true that both Rand and Trump are in the category of those who are not reflexive interventionists, but also not strict non-interventionists, but Rand's platform is, in fact, A. more principled (he does, in fact, specify clear conditions under which he would wage war, including respecting the congressional war authorization requirement), B. more coherent (note that he does not have wild mood-swings to the effect of bemoaning how few Syrian refugees are accepted one week, then declaring he would send them all back another), and C. more humane. If, therefore, Rand Paul is deserving of condemnatory articles and abuse, I feel as though Raimondo should be consistent and heap outrage on the much-worse Trump as well.

follyofwar

Rand Paul has been held to a higher standard because of the support here for his father. But Rand has made nice with the neocons instead of fighting them and it has cost him dearly. Look at his dreary poll numbers – he's lost the anti-war right that Dr. Ron occupied, who at least received 10% of the vote. Trump never had such high expectations.

GailStorm

Paul tried to play both sides but in the end he sold out and lost, a pathetic combination.

All those CIA "warnings" were just painting the background for framing a CIA/Israeli plot as a Muslim caper. Bush knew, at SOME level, to ignore, or not to address too much attention to, these red herrings. Of course, at this point, they're come back to bite his brother, but the effect WAS delayed sufficiently for George Bush to gain a second term.

That's a win for CIA Stooge George Bush, and an albatross around his brother's neck.

For the rest of us, it's the foundation of our police state at home and endless aggression abroad.

Wilson

Last paragraph. Yes, sir. Just what General Lee predicted to Lord Acton, after the war, would eventually be imposed.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].